In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another

Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vimlesh Kumar Rai Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant are taken on record.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit in response to the counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant.

3. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava and Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 39 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(F), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 5F/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bheempura, District - Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the Manager of the Institution where the victim had gone to appear her exam as it was the Board Examination Centre, is stated to have enticed away the victim to his room and had committed rape with her on 01.03.2025 between 07:15 AM to 08:15 AM.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 15 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. A false explanation has been given that the victim had reached her house after completion of examination and after narrating the entire incident to his brother, the instant FIR has been lodged.

7. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim was a high school failure on the previous occasion, as such, she had asked the applicant to help her in cheating but the applicant has refused to do so. The victim has procured maximum practical marks i.e. 30 out of 30 and could barely pass the examination as she scored barest minimum marks in written examination.

8. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim has categorically refused her medical examination.

9. Learned counsel has next contended that the victim after recording her statement u/s 183 BNSS, has given an application to the Investigating Officer on 02.04.2025 stating that the offence committed with her was of aggravated sexual assault. It is argued that the allegations made by the victim earlier on in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS all fell within the definition of rape but the same have been escalated to aggravated sexual assault that too after legal consultations. The application moved by the victim before the Investigating Officer on 02.04.2025 is hit by Section 181 of BNSS, as such, it cannot be taken into consideration.

10. Learned counsel has also placed much reliance on the CCTV footage of the school which indicate that the applicant was regularly coming in and out of the gate, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. After the alleged date of incident, the victim has further appeared in the examination i.e. on 4.3.2025, 7.3.2025 and 11.3.2025, respectively. Had the applicant committed the said offence, the same would have been reported earlier on.

11. Learned counsel has next contended that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

12. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the Manager of the Institution and he has nothing to do with the invigilation work. The said invigilation work has to be undertaken by the Principal and the teaching staff only, as such, the presence of the applicant itself speaks volume his complicity in the commissioning of offence.

13. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim was living in the house of his friend, as such, she could not report the matter. The presumption of Section 120 of BSA is against the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

14. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR coupled by the fact that there being no medical evidence of the incident and also taking into consideration the fact that the victim had appeared in the examination thrice after the alleged incident dated 01.03.2025, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Janardan Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

18. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 17.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vimlesh Kumar Rai Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant are taken on record.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit in response to the counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant.

3. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava and Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 39 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(F), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 5F/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bheempura, District - Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the Manager of the Institution where the victim had gone to appear her exam as it was the Board Examination Centre, is stated to have enticed away the victim to his room and had committed rape with her on 01.03.2025 between 07:15 AM to 08:15 AM.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 15 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. A false explanation has been given that the victim had reached her house after completion of examination and after narrating the entire incident to his brother, the instant FIR has been lodged.

7. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim was a high school failure on the previous occasion, as such, she had asked the applicant to help her in cheating but the applicant has refused to do so. The victim has procured maximum practical marks i.e. 30 out of 30 and could barely pass the examination as she scored barest minimum marks in written examination.

8. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim has categorically refused her medical examination.

9. Learned counsel has next contended that the victim after recording her statement u/s 183 BNSS, has given an application to the Investigating Officer on 02.04.2025 stating that the offence committed with her was of aggravated sexual assault. It is argued that the allegations made by the victim earlier on in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS all fell within the definition of rape but the same have been escalated to aggravated sexual assault that too after legal consultations. The application moved by the victim before the Investigating Officer on 02.04.2025 is hit by Section 181 of BNSS, as such, it cannot be taken into consideration.

10. Learned counsel has also placed much reliance on the CCTV footage of the school which indicate that the applicant was regularly coming in and out of the gate, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. After the alleged date of incident, the victim has further appeared in the examination i.e. on 4.3.2025, 7.3.2025 and 11.3.2025, respectively. Had the applicant committed the said offence, the same would have been reported earlier on.

11. Learned counsel has next contended that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

12. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the Manager of the Institution and he has nothing to do with the invigilation work. The said invigilation work has to be undertaken by the Principal and the teaching staff only, as such, the presence of the applicant itself speaks volume his complicity in the commissioning of offence.

13. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim was living in the house of his friend, as such, she could not report the matter. The presumption of Section 120 of BSA is against the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

14. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR coupled by the fact that there being no medical evidence of the incident and also taking into consideration the fact that the victim had appeared in the examination thrice after the alleged incident dated 01.03.2025, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Janardan Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

18. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 17.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad